These changes affect the fabric of the Monarchy. If we start relegislating the rules for the line of succession isn´t it possible that we may get to the stage where inheritance by the first born may seem to discriminate against the other siblings?

Regarding the religious bar, it should be remembered that a central part of the Coronation ceremony is the Monarch´s oath to uphold the Protestant faith. of course Muslims and Jews were not included in the original bar as our ancestors surely didn´t contemplate the possibility of today´s multi-cultural society. The benefits of the Protestant succession should also be highly considered. They kept Britain free from Vatican influence which even in the last decades of the 20th Century was brought to bear on the crowned head of Belgium when King Boudouin abdicated for a day to allow the passage of the abotion law.

Prince Charles has some definite views about the monarchy and the way that he should represent the respective faiths that make up the population of the UK, so we may well see some changes in relation to this upon his accession........

Logged

'For a galant spirit there can never be defeat'....Wallis Windsor

'The important things is not what they think of me, but what I think of them.'......QV

Personally I don't have a problem with a switch to gender-blind primogeniture - I would rather it was done quickly and limited to the descendants of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. (given that the first three people in the line of succession are male)I would also like to see a change in the rules of the Duchy of Cornwall so that it is free to go to the eldest child of the sovereign rather than the current eldest son - otherwise the usual income of an heir to the throne could end up with a younger brother.Wales is in the gift of the sovereign and one would assume with any change in the rules that future King's with an older daughter as heir would create her Princess of Wales.

On religion I am pretty undecided.

Respecting differing religions is one thing but Britain is still essentially a Protestant nation.

I continue to have a historical and personal view that it is incompatable for a Head of State to owe allegiance to another ruler (whether religious or otherwise) - especially given the Roman Catholic church as an organisation continues to argue its right to discriminate on religious grounds against numerous people.

My understanding that the Protestant Oath and the Coronation Oath regarding upholding the Protestant Faith applies only to Britain anyway now and not the commonwealth nations of whom the British Monarch remains sovereign.

Britain (and the Commonwealth nations) are not unique in requiring their monarchs to be of a certain faith - for a variety of historical reasons.

The Bill of Rights 1689 is quite clear - "it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist"

Wow, several very key points mcdnab. I hadn't even thought of the issue of the Duchy of Cornwall and/or the title of the Prince(ss) of Wales - but you're right, other changes would have to be made as a result of a succession change.

From what I've read - the sovereign himself / herself would still be required to practice the Anglican faith, under the new proposed changes. However, he/she would not be legally barred from the throne by marriage to a Catholic, nor would any of the other members of the royal family.

TampaBay - I also read that Cameron's timing was intended to make sure any change is implemented BEFORE the Cambridges' first child is born. Nobody wants to go through the controversy Sweden went through when their succession law was changed after the birth of CPss Victoria's brother, which had the effect of "stripping" one heir of his position and giving it to another.

I agree that if there is to be change it needs to be done before the Cambridges have children.

In a newspaper article the other day, someone raised the complication which would arise if boy-girl twins were born by caesarean. Does anyone know whether the Danish Crown Prince's twins were born naturally or not? Fortunately they have an elder brother in any event!

when King george VI became king the duchy of cornwall was vested in him he recieved the income so to quote king george IV mutton or veal call yourself what you like . princess elisabeth had income . King george VI used the duchy of cornwall income to provide his brothers etc with money and to buy back sandringham and balmoral from the duke of windsor this is a big mistake in messing with the fabric of the monarchy this will be the downfall of the british monarchy. i am afraid to say it but the magic is gone.

As I suggested in a previous post, politically the timing couldn't be better. With support for the monarchy fairly high and indeed with Commonwealth and home Nations grappling with economic fears subsequently making this issue a low priority, it may mean that these measures may go through 'on the nod' without much uproar. Whether Cameron has opened this up to detract attention from his plodding approach to economic matters (if indeed it has that affect) is open to debate and I'm sure we shall never really know. It could also be argued that this is a natural progression against the backdrop of the 'modernisation' of the House of Lords.

From the Queen's perspective she is reported to have endorsed these proposals. There have been wide ranging reforms throughout her reign, to try and make the institution of monarchy a little more relevant to the modern age. I have no doubt that this another example of her 'tidying up' and moulding the institution to suit her vision as best she can; and by a monarch with sufficient authority to enable and see through the change. The monarchy can never be seen as democratic, populist or modern, that simply isn't its function; but perhaps a little less archaic and sexist.

Now that this has been raised as an issue, I can see no defence in keeping the current arrangement of the priority younger brothers take over older sisters as heirs the the throne. Moreover some of our greatest monarchs have been Queen's (Elizabeth I, Victoria, Elizabeth II) a little more of which may not harm us. The current ruling that a monarch may not marry a Catholic is, I would suggest today irrelevant. Perhaps more controversially. they may however marry a Muslim, a Jew or a member of any other faith or none, other than a Catholic. And the ruling that permission should be sought to marry whomsoever they wish by all royal descendants is largely academic. Who marries whom in the direct line of the throne is no doubt suitably scrutinised, but these days even rugby players are given permission to marry those royals unlikely to ascend the throne.

R.I.[/quote

And so it is done; as I suspected without much fuss and I doubt whether it will cause The House of Windsor to implode. Just some 'tidying up' before it becomes an issue for William and Kate.

There was a recent article that speculated if Vicky inherited the throne from QV, she would have died just eight months later. The problem with that hypothesis is it assumes all conditions would have been the same, that Vicky's cancer couldn't possibly have been caused by the pressures of her impossible position in Germany and/or the atmosphere of Berlin. Vicky, Princess of Wales, would have remained in Britain, where she would have thrived under the regime that chafed Bertie. She would have likely married a much more minor German noble (if even German) than Frederick of Prussia. And she might have lived decades longer.

Wilhelm Friedrich was killed in action in 1940. He made a morganatic marriage, and, I think, renounced his place in the Prussian succession. This did not, however, affect his place in the British succession.

And so it is done; as I suspected without much fuss and I doubt whether it will cause The House of Windsor to implode. Just some 'tidying up' before it becomes an issue for William and Kate.R.I.

Well, I share your hope that this will passes nicely and without fuss; however, it is by no means done. Cameron and the other Commonwealth Realm prime ministers have merely agreed in principal to the changes. I was never much worried about that step. My main concern comes in the next phase - when each of those ministers actually starts to implement the plan back home.

Take Canada, for example. With patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982, a complete amending formula was adopted. Some parts of the Constitution may only be modified by a unanimous vote of all the provinces plus the two Houses of Parliament. These include changes to the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada, changing the process for amending the constitution itself, or any act affecting the Offices of the Canadian monarch or governor general. The succession would apply here.

So regardless of what Prime Minister Harper may have informed Prime Minister Cameron whilst in Perth, he has to get unanimous consent of all 10 Canadian provinces and both houses of Parliament. That will not happen without a great deal of debate in all the relevant chambers and bodies - debates which will no doubt call into question whether the time has come to end the monarchy in Canada all together. Quebec, in particular, has no strong affinity for the Crown and its refusal would effectively bring the debate to a halt.

There was a recent article that speculated if Vicky inherited the throne from QV, she would have died just eight months later. The problem with that hypothesis is it assumes all conditions would have been the same, that Vicky's cancer couldn't possibly have been caused by the pressures of her impossible position in Germany and/or the atmosphere of Berlin. Vicky, Princess of Wales, would have remained in Britain, where she would have thrived under the regime that chafed Bertie. She would have likely married a much more minor German noble (if even German) than Frederick of Prussia. And she might have lived decades longer.

Part of the main problem (and, yes, it's all in fun) is that it is highly unlikely that the future Queen of England would've been married off to the future King of Prussia. Vicky probably would've made a marriage like her mother did with a minor German princeling. So there wouldn't be a "Frederike" to be Queen.

Logged

They also serve who only stand and wait--John Milton Come visit on Pinterest--http://pinterest.com/lawrbk/